






'^^ -: 



O ♦vTVi* A 



/ *<■ ** 



* AT 













.0^ o!j 



»'^0< 



^..^ 



.^ .^. 




^Cf^9- 







W-'V 



' VW'v^* %w*/ \-w> 

















'AO^ 




• - <S'^ " 



^oV" 






















SPEECH 



MR. DUER, OF NEW YORK 



THE OEIGIN OP THE WAR WITH MEXICO, 



Objects of the Administration in its Prosecution, 



-^> 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES, 



February 14, 1841 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
1848. 



^^ SPEECH. 

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under 
consideration the bill authorizing a loan for $18,500,000 — 

Mr. DUER said : 

Mr. Chairman: 

Some time ago, when the House had under consideration the message of the 
President, I desired to say something on the subject of the Mexican war. I 
was not, however, so fortunate as to obtain the floor. What I then wished to 
say it would not, I suppose, be out of order for me to say now. But I do not 
desire to fatigue the committee by going over beaten ground. Many things 
have been said, and well said, which, as I could not hope to give them either 
additional force or novelty, it would be useless to repeat. I shall, therefore, 
entirely omit the consideration of some of these questions which have been so 
ably discussed here; and, with respect to others, I shall content myself with 
expressing my opinions without, at least in any detail, offering arguinents in 
their support. 

It seems to me unquestionable that this war had its origin in the annexation 
of Texas. It is a weak and incorrect mode of expression to say that the an- 
nexation led to war; the annexation was war. It is not necessary, to prove 
this, to refer to Grotius, or Vattel, or any other writer on the law of nations. 
It is capable of being made plain to the commonest understanding. It is in 
the nature of an axiomatic truth. It follows inevitably from indisputable facts. 
JVone, I suppose, will deny that, when the measure of annexation was con- 
summated, Mexico and Texas were at war. What, then, became of that war? 
The separate existence of Texas was gone — her nationality became merged in 
ours. Unless the annexation of Texas operated so as to produce peace between 
Texas and Mexico, (which is absurd,) the war continuing, could continue only 
with us. Sir, when we annexed Texas we annexed the war. We took her, 
and we took her quarrel with her. 

There is another share, in adjusting the responsibility for this war, that 
properly belongs to the original authors of annexation. A distinguished gen 
tleman, about a year ago, claimed to be the author of annexation; he said that 
whatever praise or blame was due to any man for that measure was due to him. 
1 allude to the gentleman by whom the negotiations were principally conducted. 
There is one portion of the blame which is unquestionably his. The principle 
upon which that gentleman justified the measure of annexation is, if well 
founded, a perfect justification to the President of the United States in prose- 
cuting this war now. What was that principle? It is not left to conjecture. It 
is of record; we find it in the printed documents of the Senate. In his corres- 
pondence with the British minister, Mr. Calhoun placed his defence of the 
measure of annexation on the ground, and on the sole ground, that it was ne- 
cessary to protect and strengthen the institution of slavery in the United States. 
The British Government had frankly avowed that it was part of their policy, 
wherever they could do so without improper interference, by persuasion and 
advice, to seek the abolition of slavery throughout the world. And, as antago- 
nistic to this policy, Mr. Calhoun — speaking not for himself, not for South 
Carolina, but speaking for the people of the United States — avowed it to be 
the policy of the American Government to prevent the abolition of slavery 
throughout the world, wherever its abolition might have the effect of weaken- 



■where I live, a pier, preserved only from absolute ruin by the voluntary con- 
tributions of the inhabitants. I shall hope to obtain the vote of this body for 
an appropriation for the continuance and completion of the work. Will, then^ 
the gentleman from South Carolina, urge that this will be a violation of the 
Constitution ? I say, no ; in the face of the pier I will maintain it is no pier,, 
but a mere collection of stones and mortar cemented together. It is not a pier, 
because Congress cannot build a pier. Being contrary to the Constitution, it 
is null and void, and must be taken not to exist at all. And there being no 
pier, of course there has been no violation of the Constitution in the past, and 
can be none in the future. — Or, does the argument of the gentleman go no 
further than to deny the appropriateness of the term war, as applied to the hos- 
tile acts against Mexico directed by the President, and the battles which were 
their consequence? If so, it is a mere question of words, and I am quite as wil- 
ling to say that the President unconstitutionally commenced hostiliiies with 
Mexico. 

Now, sir, did Mexico commence this war.? I don't wish to detain the com- 
mittee long, where they have been so often, on the banks of the Rio Grande;: 
and the question seems to me to lie in a nut-shell. Its answer depends on a 
single fact. The Mexican and American armies met on or near the banks of 
the Rio Grande. There the first battle was fought. Now, which of these 
armies was the invading army .'' Upon whose soil was this battle fought ? If 
upon American soil, then the Mexicans were the invaders, and "war exists by 
the act of Mexico;" but if upon Mexican soil, then Americans were the inva- 
ders, and this is a war " unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by 
the President of the United States." And this question of title depends upon 
the fact of possession. The title of Texas was by force, and went no further 
than her force went. It is wholly immaterial, therefore, what other territory 
at some other time had the name of Texas; it is unnecessary to consider what 
was Texas under the Spanish Government — what was the Texas that was a 
State of Mexico. The question is, what was the Texas that by revolution es- 
tablished her independence. If that was but half the Mexican State of Texas, 
certainly the people of that half could not, by taking the name of the whole, get 
title to the whole. And even though Texas, and we through Texas, had just 
title to the Rio Grande, yet if the eastern bank was at that time in the actual 
possession of the Mexicans, then, the question of title being a controverted 
question, left open to negotiation by the express terms of the act of annexation, 
and the Mexicans being in possession, the disturbance of that possession by an 
act of public force, not authorized by Congress, was a hostile act not warranted 
by the Constitution of the United States. The whole question, then, is a sim- 
ple question of possession. Who dwelt in the houses, who cultivated the fields, 
on the eastern bank of the Rio Grande.? Now, there is no want of witnesses 
here. Throwing aside the Mexicans, there were two thousand eye-witnesses 
in General Ta34or's army. Let me read the testimony of one of these eye-wit- 
nesses. That will be enough to make what lawyers call a prima facie case; 
enough to authorize me to call for testimony on the other side. Here is an 
extract from a letter, written at the time (and published shortly afterwards in 
this country) by one of the officers of General Taylor's army: 

"Our situation here is an extraordinary one: right in the enemy's country, actually occupy- 
ing their corn and cotton fields, the people of the soil leavinj^ their homes, and we with a small, 
handful of men, marching with colors flying and drums beating right under the very guns of one 
of their principal cities, displaying the star-spangled banner, as if in defiance, under their very 
noses; and they, with an army twice our size, sit quietly down and make not the least resistance,, 
not the first etibrt to drive the invaders off." 

This is to the point. But if what the President of the United States says, if 
Avhat his friends here have said, is true, that "war exists by the act of Mexico," 
then these statements m\i:A be reversed. It was Americans who were driven. 



from their homes, from their corn and cotton fields, by a Mexican invading 
army; and the army of General Taylor went, not to drive Mexicans away, but 
to protect Americans in their possessions. But where is the witness? I call 
for one, of the two thousand only one, from the commanding general down to 
the meanest camp-follower. You have never produced him; you cannot find 
him. 

But I shall be told — for I have heard such language here and elsewhere — 
that, however all this may be, I ought nevertheless to maintain, contrary to my 
clear convictions of the truth, that the Mexicans were the aggressors in this 
war; that the battle of Palo Alto was fought on American soil. That to do this, 
is to take the side of my country, and that in time of war every man ought to 
take the side of his country. Yes, sir, in war and in peace, every man ought 
to take the side of his country. But to determine what the side of my country 
is, I must inquire what are the true interests, the true glory of my country. 
The side of my country with me shall always be the side of truth and justice. 
Is James K. Polk my country? Then I confess I am no patriot. Is it patri- 
otism to falsify facts — to lie? — Sir, in monarchical governments there are men 
who surround the throne, and fill the royal ear with flattery and falsehood — it 
is by these arts they live — and they call themselves loyalists. So in republi- 
can governments, there are men who surround the people, and flatter, and lie; 
they, too, 'get their living' in that way; and they call themselves patriots. But 
I like better the honest man, who tells his king, who tells the people, the 
truth, though at the risk of disfavor and disgrace. For myself, I prefer to be 
such a man, even though I may be called a "Mexican Whig." 

Now, something as to the motives with Avhich this war was commenced, and 
is prosecuted by the President of the United States, and those partisans who 
sustain him in this part of his policy. I think I can discover a two-fold pur- 
pose; a domestic purpose, and a foreign purpose; an object to be accomplished 
abroad, and another object to be accomplished here at home. I believe, and I 
therefore charge, that the President of the United States has commenced, pro- 
secuted, and is now prosecuting, this war in a base partisan spirit, and for abase 
partisan purpose. I think that the facts from which I draw this conclusion 
amply sustain it; and those facts are in themselves clear and indisputable. 
And here let me notice an inconsistency in gentlemen on the other side. They 
are constantly saying to us, "You should unite with us in supporting this war; 
the country ought to present an united front; you must not enter into discus- 
sions about the origin of the war, or the motives with which it is prosecuted, 
because these discussions, reaching Mexico, convey the idea that the country 
is divided, and cause her to persist in her resistance." The country is at war, 
say they, therefore we must vote all the men and money the President requires; 
therefore we must not inquire whether he has violated the Constitution; 
therefore we must not inquire, being engaged in an attempt to deprive the 
Mexicans of their liberties, whether our own may not be in danger. Now, if 
gentlemen are sincere in all this; if they really hold these Mexican Indians in 
such terror, as to think it unsafe, here, in the American Congress, the war- 
making power, to discuss the war, why is it that from the beginning they have 
done, that they now do, every thing in their power to force the Whigs into op- 
position to the war? Why do we hear from your partisans language, not such 
as you blame in Whigs, imprudent, from which an inference, a false inference, 
may be drawn, but the direct charge that there is in this country a party that 
sympathizes with the Mexicans, that wishes the Mexicans success? Do any 
Whigs say so here or elsewhere? Do any Whig journals use such language? 
No; it is from your partisans, from the President downwards, from your jour- 
nals, that such language proceeds. We hear it and we see it there, and no- 
where else. We may not utter the most solemn and necessary truths, for fear 



Mexico may draw a false inference; but you may draw that false inference /or 
Mexico, and send it forth to do what mischief it may. Suppose a Whig makes 
a speech, full of truth, but indiscreet, if you please; why do you select 
particular passages, print them in capitals and italics, distort them from 
their context, interpolate words never used, and found upon the whole a 
commentary as different as possible from any idea in the mind of the author? 
I will tell you. It is because you wish to injure the Whigs here at home, by 
exciting popular prejudices against them, while you care not what the effect 
may be abroad. If any opinion exists in Mexico that there is in this country a 
Mexican party, the President and his supporters, and not the Whigs, are re- 
sponsible for the existence of that opinion. It is not the Whig truths, it is the 
Democratic falsehoods that have given *'aid and comfort" to the Mexicans. 
Look at the beginning of this war. The army of Gen. Taylor was thought to 
be in danger: instant supplies were supposed to be necessary to save it from 
destruction. Those supplies might have been voted unanimously, or nearly so. 
Possibly, there might have been a solitary no; but it is notorious that the vote 
would have been nearly or quite unanimous. Then why did you not take that 
unanimous vote of Congress when you might have had it? Why would you 
not suffer the country to present -'an united front?" Why did you deliberately 
determine that upon this question there should be division? Why insist upon 
forcing into the bill granting these supplies a preamble, which I do not say you 
believed to be false, but which you knew the Whigs believed to be false? Was 
it necessary to have this objectionable preamble in order to obtain the supplies? 
Was there any necessary or proper connection between the two things? You 
had ample notice on the other side what the Whigs thought. On a distinct 
vote being taken on the preamble, every Whig, M'ith three or four exceptions, 
voted to strike it out; and with this notice gentlemen insisted on keeping the 
preamble in the bill. Now, if the object of this was not to produce division, to 
force Whigs to vote against the bill, in order to represent them to the peo- 
ple as opposed to granting supplies, tell me what the object was. If there is 
any other hypothesis upon which the act can be explained — if gentlemen who 
deem union so necessary can tell me why they deliberately resolved that there 
should be division on this question, I should like to hear the explanation. 

Mr. Boyd here said: If the gentleman will refer to the record, he will find 
eighteen of his pohtical friends voting for the preamble declaring that Mexico 
made the war. 

Mr. DuER. I have not looked at the record. I have recently seen the ayes 
and noes printed in a neM'spaper; and my recollection is pretty distinct that but 
four Whigs were there represented as voting to sustain the preamble. I may be 
mistaken — 

Mr. Pendleton, (in his seat,) You are right. 

Mr. DuER. The gentleman from Virginia says I am right; but the exact 
number is immaterial. The fact still remains that the great body of the Whigs 
voted against the preamble.* 

And yet it is now said that the Whigs in that Congress voted that this 
war existed by the act of Mexico; and they were charged with gross inconsis- 
tency in voting at this session that the President of the United States com- 
menced the war. The assertion is false, grossly false, although I find it con- 
tained or implied in the Message of the President of the United States at the 
present session of Congress. I do not mean to charge that high functionary 
with intentionally saying what is untrue, but I aver that the allegation is false. 

*I have since examined the Journal of the House, and I find that, according; to the classifica- 
tion of the members in Greeley's Almanac, there were sixteen Whigs who voted to strike out the 
iirst section of the original bill, and insert a new section with the preamble. Sixty-seven votes 
were given against the preamble, including several democrats. 



Sir, on a distinct vote, by ayes and noes, as the journal of the House shows, 
the Whigs, with few exceptions, voted the reverse of that proposition; they 
voted against the preamble, and thereby declared that Mexico did not com- 
mence the war. It is true that, when unable to strike out the preamble, they 
voted for the bill; they voted for the supplies notwithstanding the false pream- 
ble. But was that voting for the preamble? The gentleman from South Caro- 
lina (Mr. Rhett) tells you, no. He was one of a number of democrats who 
voted against the preamble, and afterwards for the bill. He tells you that a 
preamble is no part of a bill. The Whigs who voted for the bill looked at the 
essence of the measure, and not at its form. Because a statement, in fact false, 
was contained in the bill, they did not think that the army should be refused 
succor. But why waste words? Every man here knows, the country knows, 
that the Whig Representatives in Congress never in fact said, and never in- 
tended to say, that this war was commenced by Mexico. 

Let me allude to another marked instance of Democratic "aid and comfort" 
to Mexico, by telling her that there is a Mexican party in this country. What 
did the President of the United States say in his Message at the commencement 
of the last session of Congress? In effect, he says, that those who maintain 
that the soil on which the first battle with Mexico was fought was not the soil 
of the United States, give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. If by this he mere- 
ly meant that this was the indirect effect of such arguments, if he merely meant 
to inculcate prudence, then his language, though impertinent enough, was not 
personally offensive. But it requires a great stretch of charity to believe — a 
great stretch of courtesy to say — that this was all he meant. He used the tech- 
nical terms by which the crime of high treason is defined; the words by which 
it is defined in the Constitution of the United States — he, a lawyer, an adroit par- 
tisan, uses this language. And this language he addresses and applies to the 
representatives of those whom recent elections have demonstrated to be more 
than half the people of the United States. Never were more insult and false- 
hood coupled together! Never, if he intended, as I can't help thinking he in- 
tended, to insinuate what has since been directly said, that the Members of 
Congress who opposed his administration were moral traitors, and deserved 
the punishment affixed to treason. 

Now, when the Mexicans found the President of the United States saying 
that half or more than half the American people were Mexicans at heart, were 
they not likely, coming from such a source, to give the declaration credit? It is 
what you have said in and out of Congress, what your public papers are daily 
saying, what your own Chief Magistrate has said; these are the sources, (if 
from any source whatever,) whence the Mexicans have imbibed the idea that 
there is a Mexican party in this country. I will not stoop to notice such a 
charge, though coming from the President of the United States. Whoever uses 
such calumnies, lowers only himself. Traitors to our country! The Whig 
party traitors! Who believes it? I should disdain to make such charges against 
my political opponents; I should vindicate them against such charges if made 
by others. There may be a solitary traitor, but traitors in this country are rare. 

There is another feature in the prosecution of this war which I must notice, 
as indicating the partisan spirit in which it is conducted. I will not say it is 
universally true — there are probably just exceptions enough to prevent the 
rule from being universal — but with such rare exceptions, it is a remarkable 
fact, that all the offices, all the honors which this war has placed at the dispo- 
sal of the President, have been conferred on his political partisans — the parti- 
sans of him Avho recently declared himself the President of the country and 
not of a party. Now, is this just? — Who fight your battles? Are there not 
Whigs there as well as Democrats? Whose treasure is poured forth in this 
%var? Do you tax Democrats only? Will not the burden of this debt you are 



10 

rolling up rest on the children of Whigs as well as the children of Democrats? 
Why will you carry, for the first time, this wretched spoils system into a state- 
of war? Do you think to unite the people by proscribing half of them? Are 
you not content with the spoils of the vanquished Mexicans, but must you have 
the spoils of the vanquished Whigs besides? And if, in spite of all this, we 
vote you supplies; if Whigs volunteer to fight your battles; if we offer you our 
money to provide for the widows and orphans of those who have fallen in bat- 
tle, and for making whom such we certainly are not responsible — you have no- 
thanks but taunts for our inconsistency. — Perhaps in this we are guilty of some 
inconsistency. It may not be consistent in a Whig, thinking as Whigs gene- 
rally think of this war, to volunteer to fight its battles, so long as it is an ag- 
gressive war — a war of invasion. I wiU not examine that question. It may 
be that Hardin and Lincoln erred. It may be that it was in error that young 
Clay's gallant spirit sought immortality. But if so, it was error of that sort, 
so mingled with and redeemed by the highest virtues of which our nature is 
capable, that it immortalizes the men who commit it — error like that of Brutus, 
of Virginius. And is it generous in yon, Democrats, to reproach us with such 
errors? What? In this war, which we believe to have been unnecessarily and 
unconstitutionally commenced, which you have prosecuted in a partisan spirit 
and for partisan purj^oses, this war of which you have reaped all the honors 
and emoluments, while we have equally shared the burdens; a war in which 
we are proscribed, slandered, insulted; a war in which you have sought to dis- 
grace even the generals who have won your battles, because they are Whigs; — 
if, in spite of all this, Whigs open to you their purses, if they offer to you their 
lives, might they not at least hope that for doing this they would be spared 
your reproaches? Can you not pardon the error, if it be such, the excess of 
patriotism, of which you reap the benefit? 

I say 5'ou have sought to disgrace our generals. You sought to displace 
them — to put a civilian over their heads; and the reason avowed on the floor 
of this House was, that they were Whigs. Even now you have court-mar- 
tialled Scott, after a series of victories among the most brilliant recorded in 
history. It is true, you thanked General Taylor; — you thanked him with a 
j)7-oviso! Was such a thing ever dreamed of before? Is it not the latest in- 
vention of the progressive Democracy, to thank a victorious general with a 
proviso ! In the name of common sense, if General Taylor deserve praise, 
praise him; if censure, censure him; but don't insult the old veteran; don't 
treat him like a sick child, giving him physic in sweetmeats. 

I come now to a piece of history, an incident, in the prosecution of this war,^ 
which I don't exactly know how to classify, but which I think may come under 
the domestic head; which may be ascribed quite as much to purposes to be ob- 
tained here as in Mexico. When hostilities broke out, there was in exile from 
Mexico a man, who, of all Mexicans, had the most influence over his country- 
men; a man of great ability, far the ablest of their generals; the only man, in 
short, who, though subject to those mutations to which all men are subject in 
the Spanish American States, seemed yet capable of retaining permanent power; 
besides all this, intensely national in his feelings, and a bitter hater of America. 
This man was in exile. Suddenly we hear that this exiled general has passed 
through our blockading squadron and entered Mexico. He is received with 
enthusiasm ; he raises an army as by magic. And from that day to this, the 
obstinate resistance of the Mexicans, which has cost us so much money and so 
many lives, may principally be traced to the presence of Santa Anna in Mexico. 
Before long a suspicion got abroad, incredible, too monstrous for belief, which 
yet spread itself and gained strength, until at length it assumed the form of a 
direct charge, that Santa Anna had entered Mexico with the knowledge and 
by the consent of the President of the United States ! There was even pub- 



11 

lished what purported to be a copy of a "pass" said to have been issued on ihdit 
occasion. Sir, this was denied; peremptorily, indignantly denied; and the pub- 
lished pass denounced as a forgery. But, not long afterwards, the President 
was compelled to admit that it was by his connivance that Santa Anna entered. 
Mexico. And now, at this session of Congress, there being a majority here- 
that enables the people to get information they could not get before — now, at 
length we have obtained, under the hand of the President himself, an exact 
and authentic copy of the very pass, the true and genuine pass, by which that 
false and perfidious Mexican, that bitter hater of America, was carried in safety 
and in triumph through the very midst of the American squadron. The paper- 
is short, and there have flowed from it consequences so momentous, that it 
will be curiously sought for and read with interest. Here it is : 

" Private and Confidential. 

"U. S. Navy Department, May ISth, 1846. 
" Commodore : If Santa Anna endeavors to enter the Mexican ports, you will allow him to • 
pass freely. 

Respectfullv, yours, 

GEORGE BANCROFT. 
Commodore David Connor, Commanding Home Squadron. 

This is the missive with which Santa Anna passed through the American 
fleet! With this talisman hanging around his neck, he raised the army that 
caused the gullies of Buena Vista to run with the blood of our countrymen ! By 
virtue of the same bloody scroll he poured death into our ranks from the heights 
of Cerro Gordo; and at Contreras and Churubusco, and Molino del Rey, and all 
along the avenues to the city of Mexico, strewed the fields, and blocked the 
roads, with the dead bodies of our brave soldiers. If these lines were written 
in the American blood they have caused to flow, the fatal characters would 
swell to gigantic proportions, and Colossus-hke might bestride your Capitol; 
and if all the tears of widows and orphans that have the same source w^ere 
poured out in the valley beneath, a sea would rise that would be large enough 
to bury in its waves James Polk and all his wicked advisers. 

But this is not all; this is but a part of the story. While Santa Anna, under 
his power of attorney from the President of the United States, "private and 
confidential," was raising the army with which he sought to overwhelm Gen- 
eral Taylor; at that crisis, when this nation was held suspended in alternate 
hope and fear; at that very time. General Scott, under the orders of the Presi- 
dent, was withdrawing from General T-aylor the greater part of his forces, leaving- 
him but a handful of volvnteers. With one hand, your President gives to the 
Mexican army a General; with the other, he takes from the American General 
the greater part of his troops. It reminds me of the passage in Scripture where 
Delilah cuts off Samson's hair, and then shouts in his ear, "The Philistines be 
upon thee, Samson." Now, I don't charge, for I don't beheve, that it was any 
part of the design or wish of the President that General Taylor should be de- 
feated, and his gallant army annihilated. The supposition is too monstrous. 
No; he never supposed that General Taylor would fight his friend with the odds 
of one to four. But may it not be that he thought a little wholesome inaction, 
a retreat somewhat inglorious, might be useful discipline for one who was run- 
ning away too fast with the affections of the people? In monarchical govern- 
ments, a victorious General often becomes an object of jealousy and distrust to 
his King. His monarch may honor, yet frown upon him; he may thank him 
with a proviso. The causes which produce these feelings exist and operate 
even more strongly under our elective system. Did the idea ever enter the 
President's breast, that as the hero of a war he might obtain a re-election to his 
present high office? Was there another hero of the war, in whom he feared a 
rival? We cannot penetrate the breasts of men; it is easier to read their mes- 



12 

sages than their hearts. For aught that I know, tlie President regards General 
Taylor with the kindest, the warmest feelings. If he saw him now, he might 
press him to his bosom like a brother. But I can also imagine, that he may re- 
gard him with very different feehngs; feelings somewhat like those of a preacher 
in Jefferson county, in the State of New York, who having occasion to refer to a 
certain personage, characterized him as the "Rough and Ready of the infernal 
regions." 

Now, let me briefly consider what are the motives of the President in the 
prosecution of this war, so far as Mexico is concerned. The President tells 
us — he declared in his message last year, and he reiterates the declaration in 
the message of the present year — that his object in the commencement, and in 
the prosecution of this war, has been from the beginning, and is now, " Peace!" 
Peace! — I will not question the sincerity of the President. I will not imitate in 
that respect his own bad example. Doubtless he is a sincere man, but unfor- 
tunate in this, that his acts are often the reverse of his intentions. I believe 
him to be as sincere now as when he professed his conversion to the doctrine 
of a protective tariff in the Kane letter; or, as when more recently he declared 
for "the whole of Oregon." He was a protective tariff man, a 54° 40' man, 
and now he is a "peace" man. 

But it must be admitted that the modes by which he seeks his ends are some- 
what peculiar. Not Coelebs in search of a wife had more misadventures than 
Polk in the pursuit of peace. At a period of profound tranquillity, he orders an 
army to invade the soil of Mexico to "conquer a peace." That was the be- 
ginning. The Mexicans are driven from their homes, their army defeated, 
and our victorious troops penetrate further into the interior, and capture Mon- 
terey. The commanding General grants an armistice, with the view of open- 
ing negotiations to obtain that peace which the President has so much at heart. 
But this was contrary to the President's system; and no sooner does he hear 
of it, than he orders the immediate termination of the armistice and the re- 
newal of hostilities. He sends Scott to capture V^era Cruz and march to the 
capital, where it is supposed this philosopher's stone may at last be found. 
After a series of bloody battles, of brilliant victories, this point is reached, and 
the "halls of the Montezumas" lie open to the conquerors of Mexico. Here 
again negotiations are opened. The Mexicans offer to cede to us — I will not 
pretend to be exact — but something like one-third of their territory. This offer, 
imder the instructions of the President, is rejected, and hostilities recommence. 
And still we are fighting for peace! 

How liable are men to be misunderstood! Without this explanation, Mr. 
Polk might be supposed not to be averse to war. And not Mr. Polk only, but 
all his Cabinet, are the friends of peace. I have seen it under their own 
hands; I have seen their printed declarations to that effect; and one of them, I 
remember, goes so far as to declare, that on the subject of war he is "almost a 
Quaker." Almost a Quaker, sir! Yes, sir, this is a Quaker Cabinet; a Quaker 
Cabinet seeking peace! 

But, let me ask, why was not peace made before the walls of Mexico? 
What was the real difficulty? Was it one of territory? I think not. I think 
not, from reading the correspondence. I think that the Mexicans, sooner than 
that the war should be renewed, would have been wilhng to cede to us all their 
unoccupied territory; but negotiations were broken off on a point of honor — 
because they would not sell us New Mexico, an inhabited portion of their re- 
public; because they would not sell us their countrymen. This is, in effect, 
the language of the Mexican commissioners: "We cannot contend with you; 
you are braver and stronger than we, and more skilled in war. Do you want 
land ? Take it; take one-half, two-thirds; take all the unoccupied territory of 
the Republic. But you ask more; you ask us to assign to you, to barter away, 



13 

the people of New Mexico. You ask us to sell Me:xicans. Wc cannot do-' 
that. No; if they must perish, we will perish. 'Let us perish together!'" 
It may, perhaps, in these "■progressive" days, be considered unpatriotic to pity a 
fallen foe — to admire virtue in an enemy. Yet I will confess that I am touched 
at this spectacle of a nation, forlorn yet sublime, raising its eyes to heaven, 
and resolving to perish rather than submit to dishonor. 

— And now the President, still searching for "peace," comes to us for more 
men. more money, and demands a more vigorous prosecution of the war into the 
^^vital parts" of the enemy. He seeks peace as Sangrado sought health — by let- 
ting blood. — Sir, how much of Mexico is embraced within the term peace, as em- 
ployed in the President's message? VVe know what it included in the instructions 
to Mr. Trist. But since that time the expenses of the war have greatly increased,, 
and we are to have indemnity for these expenses. We are to recover the 
debt with costs. The expenses are rapidly increasing, and the fund out of 
which they are to be paid is as rapidly diminishing. The President tells us he 
is anxious to preserve the nationality of Mexico. But what remnant is it of 
Mexico of which he desires to preserve the nationality? And how long will it 
be before the whole is absorbed? Indeed, the President himself seems to con- 
template this as a not improbable consequence of his pohcy. He has sought 
peace, and found only war; in seeking to preserve the nationality of Mexico, he 
may find her destruction. But if that shall happen, then let the world wit- 
ness, that it will have happened contrary to the anxious desires, to the strenu- 
ous efforts of the President, and is the sole consequence of the obstinacy of 
Mexico in an aggressive war, a war of invasion, commenced and prosecuted by 
her. — These are among the truths upon which rests that Democratic column, 
raised by the gentleman from Illinois, and appropriately dedicated by him to 
James K. Polk. 

Sir, let us not be hypocrites in this business; let us say plainly and boldly 
what we mean. If you would be conquerors, use their language; speak of con- 
quest, of glory, of extended dominion. But don't sentimentalize; don't drivel 
morality; don't desecrate the name of religion. Away with this wretched 
cant about a "manifest destiny," a "divine mission," a warrant from the Most 
High, to civilize, and christianize, and democratize our sister republics at the 
mouth of the cannon; sentiments which have found tb.eir way from dinner-table 
toasts and "Empire club" harangues, to the mouths of grave Senators, and 
even, I have heard, to the pulpit itself; but which seem to me, I say it with 
deference, fit only to be preached by a Friar Tuck to a band of robbers. — And 
this is patriotism! — Sir, I turn from James K. Polk, the dispenser of the spoils — 
I turn from Polk to Washington, to learn what patriotism is. There I find the 
virtues dwelling together! There I find a patriotism, surrounded, hallowed, 
adorned, by truth, justice, humanity. Who, for all Oregon or all Mexico, who 
would that the pure fame of the father of his country should be sullied by a 
single falsehood, a single instance of rapacity or injustice? No; let his image 
rise to men's memories, to the most distant times, pure as the marble in which 
his form is sculptured within these enclosures, serene, sublime — bearing the 
sword, but a sword that Avas drawn for liberty, not for conquest; a sword that 
was never stained but with the blood of an invader! Such I Avould have the 
fame of my country. Such has been the fame of my country. I would not 
sell such fame for all the trophies of all the conquerors who have ever devas- 
tated the earth; not for all the gold and silver for which Cortez and Pizarro 
waded through blood — not though the mountains of Mexico were compact of 
solid gold. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, (Mr. Morse,) has charged the Whigs with 
inconsistency, in this, that, having declared this war unconstitutional and un- 
just, they nevertheless vote supplies to our soldiers, and that, having the power 



14 

lo produce peace, they do not use that power. Sir, similar language I have] 
heard before; and I select it where I find it in the most distinct and palpable) 
form. The gentleman's argument is defective in this respect, that his premises 
are false and his conclusion illogical. It is not a fact that the Whigs have de- 
clared this war unconstitutional. They have voted that it was unconstitution- j 
ally commenced by the President; but, as it has since been recognised by Con- 
gress, I suppose it not to be doubted that it is constitutionally prosecuted now. 
The Whigs have not said that this war is unjust; they have declared that it 
was unnecessary. In judging us, let us be judged by our own M'^ords, and not 
by those put into our mouths by political opponents. I have no objection, 
however, to express my own opinion as to the justice of this war. I am the friend 
of peace. As such I am ready to take whatever unpopularity may attach itself 
to me. I believe few wars necessary; and I don't doubt that an unnecessary 
war is unjustifiable in the sight of heaven. But the word unjust is commonly 
used in a different sense. A man may have a claim against another,* good in 
law and in equity, but to collect which he unnecessarily and oppressively re- 
sorts to legal process; in this his conduct would not be justifiable, but we would 
not say that he prosecuted an imjust claim. I think this war unnecessary, and 
therefore unjustifiable; but I don't think that, as between us and Mexico, jus- 
tice is on her and injustice on our side. There is mutual fault. We have just 
reason to complain of many wrongs in Mexico. She was wrong in committing 
spoliations on our commerce, wrong in not paying us for such injuries, wrong 
(though under extenuating circumstances) in not receiving our minister to ne- 
gotiate on the question of boundary. 

[ * At this point the Speaker's hammer fell. It is an inconvenience of the hour rule that, 
from a miscalculation of time, one may be compelled to omit what he principally desired to say. 
I intended, and supposed that I should have had time, to defend the conduct and maintain the con- 
sistency of Whigs in voting such supplies as were necessary for the safety and honor of our 
army; to consider what was their duty, in this respect, at the present session of Congress, 
and under what conditions and restrictions supplies should be granted ; and, lastly, to inquire 
what was the real obstacle to peace, and how that obstacle could be removed. I have not 
thought proper, however, in publishing my remarks, to do more than add a few sentences ne- 
cessary to render clear my meaning in what immediately pi'ecedes them.] 






V f * • "^ 'o. 



V 









O *0 4« '* > \y •*•<>- ^ 







% 






.v^ 






• • , -^^ <> 









\^ "-i/, •" .ijt" 

















^■^ *,^ 













^o 






<,^o^ 







V-o' .^^ ... "V^ 






^0 



> ->.. 












'/"'.i' 






bU 




fililiiiiliiiiii 



